Jared Flores
Annotation 13: The 11th Hour
1.Title, director, and release year?
The 11th Hour, directed by Leila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners, released in 2007
2.What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film tells the story of the impact of human beings on the environment. According to the film, people have become so focused on maintaining the dominant species persona that we have left nature to wither. We extract too much from nature, we consume too many resources, and we dump our waste without thinking, causing nature to degrade all the while. Humans, for the most part, believe that they are separate from nature, but they have it all wrong. We need nature, and we always have. It is because of the resources that we get from nature that we our able to maintain our extremely wasteful lifestyles, yet we neglect to sustain nature. The film argues that humans have cause irreparable damage to the environment, and have cause global warming, which results in the many natural disasters we have faced in decades past.
3.What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
One sustainability problem that the film draws out is economic sustainability. It is stated in the film that people care far more about the economy than they do about nature. This is a very true statement. We dump waste into rivers, we pollute the air with carbon emissions, and we cut down rainforests, all in the name of making money. The reason why companies dump their waste irresponsibly is because it costs money to properly dispose of waste. The reason that oil is drilled for and trees are cut down is because there is a demand for these things. People pay money to obtain products that make their lives easier. So, companies continue to exhaust the Earth for these resources, thus starting the vicious cycle all over again.
Political sustainability is another issue brought up by this film. The government, for the most part, ignores nature’s cries for help. In the film, it is brought up that the founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be changed over the years to support the needs of the current generation. Our world is dying around us, and we will go with it if nothing is changed. Yet, the government’s greatest concern is sending troops to Afghanistan in order to obtain the oil that will perpetuate our wasteful lifestyles.
Another sustainability issue brought up by the film is cultural sustainability. Simply put, we consume far too many resources for the Earth to support. Most animals are ruled by opportunism and greed. If animals are able to obtain things to sustain their own life, they will likely do so. The folly of man is that we are gifted with a higher intelligence, so our opportunities are not as bounded as most animals. We have allowed our lifestyles to go out of control, and as the film points out, while our world’s resources are depleting, our demand for resources continues to grow.
4.What parts of the film were you compelled or convinced by? Why?
One part of the film that I was convinced by was the very beginning. The film opens with a series of scenes and images of natural disasters. I believe that this was a powerful scene to open with. It really grabbed my attention, and got me interested in watching the film attentively. The scenes are somewhat horrific, and seem fantastical, but as the film goes on, it becomes clear that these are the kinds of disasters that go on in the world on a regular basis, and we are the cause of them.
Another part of the film I was convinced by was the commentary by physicist Stephen Hawking. He provided a great deal of useful information about the state of the environment, some of which I had never heard before. For example, Hawking brought up that as the polar ice caps melt, the Earth is losing the albedo that was provided by these ice caps. This is causing the Earth to further increase in temperature, which will in turn cause more ice to melt. The prospect of such a cycle is truly terrifying, and it really solidifies the argument that the environment must be maintained. He also mentioned that the effect humans have had on the Earth can be seen from outer space. The image that was shown was not far from what I imagined it would be. Much of the vegetation and healthy green color shown in my elementary science text books was no longer there.
5.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The part of the film that I was most put off by was the use of Leonardo DiCaprio as the narrator of the film. I can understand that this movie would want to use his star power to pander to a more ignorant audience, but personally, I am not one of the people that this sort of thing appeals to. Having him in this movie seemed like a desperate maneuver, and one that I would have thought that documentaries looking to be convincing would be trying to avoid. It just seems like they’re selling out the spirit of the documentary and that they think that by putting a star in their movie, people will be more inclined to listen. Instead, they should devote whatever time would have been given to having a celebrity on the screen to presenting more information on the problem at hand.
6.What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I am somewhat inclined by this movie to seek more information on the natural cycles of the Earth. The movie stated that the Earth goes through cycles of climate changes, such as ice ages, but that we are currently influencing the Earth’s climate through our actions. I want to look up any information on so called “hot periods” that the Earth has had, and how the planet recovered from these periods. The film also brings up the desertification that occurs as a result of deforestation. I am compelled to find more information about this occurrence and to see if this desertification is a natural from loss of vegetation, or if it is a result of global warming.
7.What audience does this film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that this film best addresses anyone who is concerned with the environment, and many more people besides that thanks to the inclusion of Leonardo DiCaprio. The use of a celebrity was a great strategy for roping in the more ignorant and impressionable demographic, as much as I disagree with the practice. The film also shows many scenes and images of the devastation cause by our careless treatment of the environment. It presents many figures that demonstrate the result of the human footprint on our planet, and how much has changed in such a short time. I believe that this film will inspire, if not guilt trip, its audience into re-evaluating their lifestyles, and to be more conscious of how much they consume and what impact they are having on the environment.
8.What actions or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film suggests government intervention on the energy crisis. One man suggests that the government lower income taxes but raise taxes on oil and other sources of energy. Doing so will help to wean people away from their over-consuming lifestyles, and inspire them to be less wasteful so that they will be able to spend less money on taxes. This will also have an impact on the energy industry, as this will cut away at their profits and make the organizations more sustainable.
The film also, as per usual of this genre, suggests research into clean energy. The film argues that clean energy will easy win out over our current sources of energy if enough research is done to give clean energy a fighting chance. The argument is made that clean energy research will provide millions of jobs, be good for the economy, and help out the environment all at the same time. This argument, however, seems highly idealistic.
9.What could have been added to the film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film provided a great many possibilities for how to solve the problems it addressed, but not very many ways on how to implement them. Suggesting government intervention and clean energy research is all well and good, but people have been suggesting these things for years. The film fails to address how we will make it happen. How can we take people’s focus away from oil, and how can we get the government to intervene? These are the sort of questions a film like this should be answering.
Annotation 13: The 11th Hour
1. Title, director, and release year?
The 11th Hour, directed by Leila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners, released in 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film tells the story of the impact of human beings on the environment. According to the film, people have become so focused on maintaining the dominant species persona that we have left nature to wither. We extract too much from nature, we consume too many resources, and we dump our waste without thinking, causing nature to degrade all the while. Humans, for the most part, believe that they are separate from nature, but they have it all wrong. We need nature, and we always have. It is because of the resources that we get from nature that we our able to maintain our extremely wasteful lifestyles, yet we neglect to sustain nature. The film argues that humans have cause irreparable damage to the environment, and have cause global warming, which results in the many natural disasters we have faced in decades past.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
One sustainability problem that the film draws out is economic sustainability. It is stated in the film that people care far more about the economy than they do about nature. This is a very true statement. We dump waste into rivers, we pollute the air with carbon emissions, and we cut down rainforests, all in the name of making money. The reason why companies dump their waste irresponsibly is because it costs money to properly dispose of waste. The reason that oil is drilled for and trees are cut down is because there is a demand for these things. People pay money to obtain products that make their lives easier. So, companies continue to exhaust the Earth for these resources, thus starting the vicious cycle all over again.
Political sustainability is another issue brought up by this film. The government, for the most part, ignores nature’s cries for help. In the film, it is brought up that the founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be changed over the years to support the needs of the current generation. Our world is dying around us, and we will go with it if nothing is changed. Yet, the government’s greatest concern is sending troops to Afghanistan in order to obtain the oil that will perpetuate our wasteful lifestyles.
Another sustainability issue brought up by the film is cultural sustainability. Simply put, we consume far too many resources for the Earth to support. Most animals are ruled by opportunism and greed. If animals are able to obtain things to sustain their own life, they will likely do so. The folly of man is that we are gifted with a higher intelligence, so our opportunities are not as bounded as most animals. We have allowed our lifestyles to go out of control, and as the film points out, while our world’s resources are depleting, our demand for resources continues to grow.
4. What parts of the film were you compelled or convinced by? Why?
One part of the film that I was convinced by was the very beginning. The film opens with a series of scenes and images of natural disasters. I believe that this was a powerful scene to open with. It really grabbed my attention, and got me interested in watching the film attentively. The scenes are somewhat horrific, and seem fantastical, but as the film goes on, it becomes clear that these are the kinds of disasters that go on in the world on a regular basis, and we are the cause of them.
Another part of the film I was convinced by was the commentary by physicist Stephen Hawking. He provided a great deal of useful information about the state of the environment, some of which I had never heard before. For example, Hawking brought up that as the polar ice caps melt, the Earth is losing the albedo that was provided by these ice caps. This is causing the Earth to further increase in temperature, which will in turn cause more ice to melt. The prospect of such a cycle is truly terrifying, and it really solidifies the argument that the environment must be maintained. He also mentioned that the effect humans have had on the Earth can be seen from outer space. The image that was shown was not far from what I imagined it would be. Much of the vegetation and healthy green color shown in my elementary science text books was no longer there.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The part of the film that I was most put off by was the use of Leonardo DiCaprio as the narrator of the film. I can understand that this movie would want to use his star power to pander to a more ignorant audience, but personally, I am not one of the people that this sort of thing appeals to. Having him in this movie seemed like a desperate maneuver, and one that I would have thought that documentaries looking to be convincing would be trying to avoid. It just seems like they’re selling out the spirit of the documentary and that they think that by putting a star in their movie, people will be more inclined to listen. Instead, they should devote whatever time would have been given to having a celebrity on the screen to presenting more information on the problem at hand.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I am somewhat inclined by this movie to seek more information on the natural cycles of the Earth. The movie stated that the Earth goes through cycles of climate changes, such as ice ages, but that we are currently influencing the Earth’s climate through our actions. I want to look up any information on so called “hot periods” that the Earth has had, and how the planet recovered from these periods. The film also brings up the desertification that occurs as a result of deforestation. I am compelled to find more information about this occurrence and to see if this desertification is a natural from loss of vegetation, or if it is a result of global warming.
7. What audience does this film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that this film best addresses anyone who is concerned with the environment, and many more people besides that thanks to the inclusion of Leonardo DiCaprio. The use of a celebrity was a great strategy for roping in the more ignorant and impressionable demographic, as much as I disagree with the practice. The film also shows many scenes and images of the devastation cause by our careless treatment of the environment. It presents many figures that demonstrate the result of the human footprint on our planet, and how much has changed in such a short time. I believe that this film will inspire, if not guilt trip, its audience into re-evaluating their lifestyles, and to be more conscious of how much they consume and what impact they are having on the environment.
8. What actions or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film suggests government intervention on the energy crisis. One man suggests that the government lower income taxes but raise taxes on oil and other sources of energy. Doing so will help to wean people away from their over-consuming lifestyles, and inspire them to be less wasteful so that they will be able to spend less money on taxes. This will also have an impact on the energy industry, as this will cut away at their profits and make the organizations more sustainable.
The film also, as per usual of this genre, suggests research into clean energy. The film argues that clean energy will easy win out over our current sources of energy if enough research is done to give clean energy a fighting chance. The argument is made that clean energy research will provide millions of jobs, be good for the economy, and help out the environment all at the same time. This argument, however, seems highly idealistic.
9. What could have been added to the film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film provided a great many possibilities for how to solve the problems it addressed, but not very many ways on how to implement them. Suggesting government intervention and clean energy research is all well and good, but people have been suggesting these things for years. The film fails to address how we will make it happen. How can we take people’s focus away from oil, and how can we get the government to intervene? These are the sort of questions a film like this should be answering.